zenbowl published a diary earlier on this. My take is different, so I'm publishing also.
________________________
This morning’s letter to Democrats in the WaPo by Harold Ford Jr, chairman of the DLC, and Martin O'Malley, governor of Maryland, can’t be an innocent mistake, and it isn't a lonely voice in the woods. This letter represents not just the DLC but every Democratic member of Congress who would vote against the base even when there is no political risk in voting with us, as we saw them do this past week.
The attack on the party base and the distortion of political history which together support Ford and O'Malley's argument are too precisely worded to have sprung from mere ignorance, as we'll see. Ford and O’Malley are declaring war on the base and the netroots just as we're enjoying our recent success in getting Presidential candidates to our table. They are letting us know what the entrenched elite are willing to do to defeat us: distort history, depress activists, misrepresent the public. Ford and O'Malley are writing for many more in Washington than just the DLC.
But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.
A majority comes hard for Democrats. In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote.
The key moment in this poison pill letter, this blatant warning and threat from Washington to us, is the sentence "A majority comes hard for Democrats" and the distorted info that backs it up. Why do Ford and O'Malley claim a majority is hard to come by? "In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote."
This is just disgusting.
First, when O’Malley and Ford tell us that "In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote," they neglect to mention that the other two, Johnson and Carter, came after Roosevelt.
Since Roosevelt won his last election in 1944, and won it with a majority of the popular vote, O’Malley and Ford could just as easily have written, "In the past 63 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote." But that wouldn’t sound so hopeless; especially when we consider that in this same time-frame there were only three other Democratic Presidents at all: Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton. Three won with majorities. Three didn’t. What lesson really follows?
Second, the number of Democratic Presidents in the 20th century who won the White House with a majority of the popular vote is not exactly the only factor relevant to assessing whether or not "a majority comes hard for Democrats", as O’Malley and Ford allege.
Here are some facts (I extrapolated some of these numbers myself; but hat-tip to Dr. Roper, first link, for most. If anything looks off, it's my fault. Please let me know):
- In the twentieth century, Democrats held the White House for 48 years; Republicans held it for 52 years.
- In the twentieth century, the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for 32 years; Republicans controlled them for 23 years.
- In the twentieth century, the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate for 22 years during Republican presidencies. The Republicans had control of both the House and Senate for 10 years during Democratic presidencies.
- Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 54 years in the twentieth century, compared to 32 years for Republicans.
(link)
- Democrats held the House for 64 years in the twentieth century.
- Democrats held the Senate for 58 years in the twentieth century.
(link)
None of that seems to back up Ford and O’Malley’s claim that "a majority comes hard for Democrats". Those facts, if anything, should depress Republicans.
But in this alien DLC world, which looks superficially like our world, every fact, however neutral or even positive for Democrats, is dark and foreboding. The 20th Century was a disastrous string of defeat after defeat after squeaky unearned victory after defeat for our despised minority party.
Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day.
As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great -- and too rare -- to pass up.
Every real American, as opposed to liberal, is apathetic about the Constitution and would vote against any defense of it that even mildly inconvenienced President Bush -- a guy who, apparently, is trying to find "practical answers to the problems [Americans] face every day". On the plus side, in this alien world, Republicans never invaded Iraq, or if they did it was a swimming success, long over, no longer meriting a mention.
In this alien DLC world, Democrats have a choice, admit that "neither side has a monopoly on truth" or else alienate the ordinary ignorant stupid voter who never heard of nor cared about Iraq, the separation of powers, secret prisons, civil rights. Those are the options, and never mind that polls from planet Earth are not ambiguous: people want Democrats in control and they want them to take action.
The problem we face is that this letter is not representative of the DLC alone. If this letter by Ford and O’Malley represented the views of just the sorry, sad-ass DLC, there would be no cause for alarm. The problem, as eugene pointed out in his The Great Disconnect on Sunday, is that these distorted, Grima Wormtounge pictures of America are being employed and deployed, apparently, by many, many Washington Democrats.
Including, perhaps, the ones who came to visit us in Chicago.
So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans . . .
Indeed, Ford and O’Malley. Indeed. [Update: Elise reminds us that simply accepting that the presidential candidates are adopting DLC-type stances is exactly in keeping with O'Malley and Ford's frame, here. For that reason alone it is well worth questioning. (I say the answer to the question is "Yes, they largely are", but it's still worth the question, regardless.)]
We’re at war with a party elite who would rather defend their power than win real progress for the left. Since a win for Democrats is all but inevitable, they are fighting tooth and nail to make sure the victory doesn’t mean very much. Above all, that it doesn’t cost them their own seats at the table.